SL Coming To America? Is The Boomerang Story About to Hit?

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
It is only a matter of time and SL will be coming to America. It will start in heavily inhabited Muslim communities, where it will become acceptable and it will spread as Muslim political influence and numbers increase. The Democrat Party will not object as their support from the party's black members will become more pronounced and Pelosi and her ilk will remain silent/cave for fear they cannot object as happened with respect to Omar's anti-Semitic outbursts.

Melanie Phillips is correct when she writes Cultural Marxism has already infected American universities and our other social and cultural institutions. First, it came on the wings of PC'ism and then spread.  This has been the goal, all along,  of those who wish to undermine out nation, by spreading discord and weakening us from within.It is the age old story of divide and conquer.

As long as America remained "united and strong" our republic was safe. Once we became divided, once we turned against each other our societal immune system became weakened and vulnerable.

Identity politics, envy and greed, growth in entitlements, loss of that independent character that defines what it means to be an American, poor education have all combined to destabilize our nation. (See 1 below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The boomerang story is developing.  Will anything come of it?  If it does it will be the biggest political scandal ever. The Tea Pot Dome and Watergate will look like piker business.

Most of this is excerpted  from Hanson's: "The Case For Trump" in The Chapter entitled:  "The Ancien Regime." (See 2 below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
More regarding Brunei, Sharia Law and Hollywood's brave George Clooney. (See 3 below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dick
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1) Another Country Adopts Sharia Law

• By AAN Staff

Brunei will now punish gay sex and adultery with death by stoning thanks to a new penal code inspired by sharia law. (The Guardian)

From 3 April, people in the tiny south-east Asian kingdom will be subjected to a draconian new penal code, which also includes the amputation of a hand and a foot for the crime of theft. To be convicted, the crimes must be “witnessed by a group of Muslims”.

Brunei, which has adopted a more conservative form of Islam in recent years, first announced in 2013 its intention to introduce sharia law, the Islamic legal system that imposes strict corporal punishments.

It was a directive of the Sultan of Brunei, Hassanal Bolkiah, who is one of the world’s richest leaders with a personal wealth of about $20bn (£15bn) and has held the throne since 1967. He described the implementation of the new penal code as “a great achievement”.

Alcohol is already banned in Brunei, as are showy Christmas celebrations, and there are fines and jail sentences for having children out of wedlock and failing to pray on a Friday. However, a heavy international backlash against Brunei imposing some of the more brutal sharia punishments has slowed their full implementation over the past five years.

Brunei's sharia law applies to Muslims, for now, who comprise two-thirds of the country's population.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2) The Tables Turn in Russian Collusion Hunt By Victor Davis Hanson

Posted By Ruth King

The irony of the entire Russian collusion hoax is that accusers who cried the loudest about leaking, collusion, lying, and obstruction are themselves soon very likely to be accused of just those crimes.

Now that Robert Mueller’s 674-day, $30 million investigation is over and has failed to find the original goal of its mandate—evidence of a criminal conspiracy between the Trump presidential campaign and the Russian government to sway the 2016 election—and now that thousands of once-sealed government documents will likely be released in un-redacted form, those who eagerly assumed the role of the hunters may become the hunted, due to their own zealous violation of the nation’s trust and its laws.

Take Lying

Former FBI Director James Comey’s testimonies cannot be reconciled with those of his own deputy director Andrew McCabe. He falsely testified that the Steele dossier was not the main basis for obtaining FISA court warrants. On at least 245 occasions, Comey swore under oath that he either did not know, or could not remember, when asked direct questions about his conduct at the FBI. He likely lied when he testified that he did not conclude his assessment of the Clinton illegal email use before he had even interviewed Clinton, an assertion contradicted by his own written report. I guess his credo and modus operandi are reflected in the subtitle of his recent autobiography A Higher Loyalty: “Truth, Lies, and Leadership.”

Andrew McCabe currently is under criminal referral for lying to federal investigators about leaking to the media. He and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein each have accused each other of not telling the whole truth about their shared caper of trying to force President Trump out of office by invoking the 25th Amendment.

Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper has admitted to lying under oath to Congress—and since lied about his earlier admission of that lying. His recent sworn congressional testimony of not having leaked information about the Steele dossier to the media is again likely to be untrue, given that Clapper had admitted to speaking to CNN’s Jake Tapper about the dossier’s contents. CNN, remember, would in turn go on to hire the mendacious Clapper as an analyst. And once on air, Clapper would insist that Trump was both a Russian asset and thus guilty of collusion crimes greater than those of Watergate. Lies. All lies.

Former CIA Director John Brennan has admitted to lying under oath to Congress on two occasions. He may well face further legal exposure. When he lost his security clearance, he repeatedly lied that Trump was guilty of collusion, however that non-crime is defined. And as the Mueller probe wound down, Brennan with pseudo-authority and trumped-up hints of phony access to secret intelligence sources deceitfully assured the nation that Trump within days would face indictment—perhaps along with his family members.

Brennan in 2016 also reached out to foreign intelligence services, primary British and Australian, to surveille and entrap Trump aides, as a way of circumventing rules preventing CIA monitoring of American citizens. And he may well have also reverse-targeted Americans, under the guise of monitoring foreign nationals, in order to build a case of so-called Trump collusion.

Finally, Brennan testified to Congress in May 2017 that he had not been earlier aware of the dossier or its contents before the election, although in August 2016 it is almost certain that he had briefed Senator Harry Reid (D-Nev.) on it in a spirited effort to have Reid pressure the FBI to keep or expand its counterintelligence investigation of Trump during the critical final weeks of the election.

Clinton aides Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin likely also lied to FBI investigators when they claimed they had no knowledge while working at the State Department that their boss, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, was using an illegal private email server. In fact, they had read her communications on it and actually inquired about its efficacy.

Samantha Power, the former U.N. ambassador, in her last year in office requested on more than 260 occasions to unmask names of Americans monitored by the government. Yet Power later claimed that most of these requests were not made by her. And yet she either does not know or does not cite who exactly used her name to make such requests during the election cycle. In any case, no one has come forward to admit to the improper use of Power’s name to request the hundreds of unmaskings.

Susan Rice, the former Obama national security advisor, could have made a number of unmasking requests in Power’s name, although she initially denied making any requests in her own name—a lie she immediately amended. Rice, remember, repeatedly lied on national television about the cause and origins of the Benghazi attack, denied there were cash payments for hostages in the Iran deal, misled about the conduct of Beau Bergdahl, and prevaricated over the existence and destruction of weapons of mass destruction in Syria.

Deputy Attorney General Bruce Ohr did not tell the truth on a federal written disclosure required by law when he omitted the key fact that his wife Nellie worked on Christopher Steele’s Fusion GPS dossier. Ohr’s testimony that he completely briefed key FBI officials on the dossier in July or August 2016 is not compatible to what former FBI attorney Lisa Page has testified to concerning the dates of her own knowledge of the Steele material.

Take Foreign Collusion

Christopher Steele is a foreign national. So are many of the Russian sources that he claims he had contacted to solicit dirt on Donald Trump and his campaign aides. In fact, John Brennan’s CIA, soon in consultation with the FBI, was used in circuitous fashion to facilitate surveillance of Donald Trump’s campaign through the use of foreign nationals during the 2016 campaign.

Foreigners such as Maltese professor Josef Mifsud, and former Australian minister for foreign affairs Alexander Downer and an array of intelligence contractors from the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) mysteriously met with minor Trump aide George Papadopoulos and others. It is likely that to disguise American intelligence agencies’ efforts to besmirch, surveille, and leak to the press damaging unfounded rumors about the Trump campaign that John Brennan enlisted an entire cadre of foreign nationals. And it is likely to be the most egregious example of using non-U.S. citizens to affect the outcome of an election in our history. If there is a crime of foreign collusion—a conspiracy of U.S. officials to use foreigners to interfere with an American election—then Brennan’s efforts are the textbook 

example.

Take Leaking

Many of the names unmasked by requests from Samantha Power and Susan Rice were leaked illegally to the media. James Comey himself leaked confidential memos of presidential conversations to the press; in at least one case, the memo was likely classified.

Former FBI general counsel James Baker is currently under criminal referral for improperly leaking classified documents. He seems to have been in contact with the media before the election and he may have been one of many FBI officials and contacts, along with Christopher Steele, that reporters such as David Corn, Michael Isikoff, and Julia Ioffe anonymously referenced in their pre-election published hit pieces on Russian collusion—all the result of the successful strategies of Fusion GPS, along with some in the FBI, to seed unverified anti-Trump gossip to warp the election. Andrew McCabe also is under criminal referral both for leaking classified information and then lying about it.

In a fashion emblematic of this entire sordid mess, the always ethically compromised James Clapper in January 2017 had leaked the dossier to Jake Tapper of CNN and likely other journalists and then shortly afterwards publicly deplored just this sort of government leaking that had led to sensational stories about the dossier.

Take Obstruction of Justice

A number of FBI and Department of Justice high ranking employees such as James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Rod Rosenstein, and Sally Yates all signed off on FISA warrants to surveille Carter Page without apprising the courts that they knew that their chief evidence, the Steele Dossier, was unverified, was paid for by Hillary Clinton, and was used in circular fashion as the basis for news accounts presented to the court. Nor did the Justice Department and FBI officials apprise the FISA justices that Christopher Steele had been terminated as a FBI source.

No one believes that former Attorney General Loretta Lynch just happened to meet Bill Clinton on a Phoenix airport tarmac and confined their conservations to a variety of topics having nothing to do with Hillary Clinton—at a time when Lynch’s Justice Department was investigating her. Note the meeting was only disclosed because a reporter got a tip and arrived on the scene of the two adjoining Lynch and Clinton private jets—which suggests that the only thing Lynch and Clinton regretted was being found out. Few believe that Lynch had recused herself as she promised, given her strict oversight of the sort of language Comey’s FBI was allowed to use in its investigation of Clinton.

Take Conflict of Interest

Andrew McCabe never should have been in charge of the FBI investigation of Hillary Clinton, given that just months earlier his wife had been the recipient of $675,000 in campaign cash donated by Clinton and Democratic Party-affiliated political action committees. And the apology of a “time line” that suggests conflicts of interest like McCabe’s expired after an arbitrary date is specious. McCabe knew his spouse had been a recent recipient of Clinton-related money, knew that he had substantial influence on the fate of her email investigation, and hoped and assumed that she was likely to be the next president of the United States quite soon.

Rod Rosenstein never should have been appointed acting attorney general in charge of oversight of the Mueller investigation. He knew Mueller well. In circular fashion, he had drafted the rationale to fire Comey that had prompted the Mueller’s appointment. He had signed off on a FISA warrant request without apprising the court of the true nature of the Steele dossier’s origins and nature. He had met shortly before the Mueller appointment with acting FBI director Andrew McCabe to investigate the chance of removing Trump under a distortion of the 25th Amendment. So, in essence, Rosenstein had been one of the catalysts for McCabe to investigate removing Trump for his own part in the removal of Comey and then in Orwellian fashion joined McCabe’s efforts.

Comey deliberately leaked a classified memo of a presidential conversation, in which he had misled the president about his actual status under FBI investigations, in order to cause enough media outrage over his firing to prompt the hiring of a special counsel. That gambit succeeded in the appointment of his own longtime associate Robert Mueller, who would be charged to investigate “collusion,” in which Comey played an important role in monitoring the Trump campaign with the assistance of British national Christopher Steele.

Robert Mueller did not need to appoint a legal team inordinately Democratic, which included attorneys who had been either donors to the Clinton campaign, or had been attorneys for Clinton aides, or had defended the Clinton Foundation. And he certainly should not have included on his investigative team that was charged with adjudicating Russian collusion in the 2016 election both Zainab Ahmad and Andrew Weissman, Obama Justice Department officials, who had been briefed by Bruce Ohr before the election on the nature of the Steele dossier and its use of foreign sources.

It will be difficult to unravel all of the above lying, distortion, and unethical and illegal conduct.

The motives of these bad actors are diverse, but they share a common denominator. As Washington politicos and administrative state careerists, all of them believed that Donald Trump was so abhorrent that he should be prevented from winning the 2016 election. After his stunning and shocking victory, they assumed further that either he should not be inaugurated or he should be removed from office as soon as they could arrange it.

They further reasoned that as high and esteemed unelected officials their efforts were above and beyond the law, and rightly so, given their assumed superior wisdom and morality.

Finally, if their initial efforts were predicated on winning not just exemption from the law, but even promotions and kudos from a grateful President Hillary Clinton, their subsequent energies at removing Trump and investing in the collusion hoax were preemptive and defensive. Seeding the collusion hoax was a way either of removing Trump who had the presidential power to call them all to account for their illegality, or at least causing so much media chaos and political havoc that their own crimes and misdemeanors would be forgotten by becoming submerged amid years of scandal, conspiracies, and media sensationalism.

And they were almost—but so far not quite—correct in all their assumptions.

Content created by the Center for American Greatness, Inc. is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a significant audience. For licensing opportunities for our original content, please contact licensing@centerforamericangreatness.com.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

3)

George Clooney’s ‘Chicken-S**t Tokenism?’ Think Again

Clarion Project

George Clooney proposed boycotting nine hotels owned by Brunei over the sultan’s implementation of sharialaw. Bill Maher called that “chicken S**t tokenism. Read Clarion Project Editor Meira Svirsky’s take on the subject: 

In response to stiff opposition to a draconian sharia penal code set to go into effect April 3 – including stoning to death gays and adulterers – the sultan of Brunei has doubled down on his resolve to implement the laws.

“The [Sharia] Law, apart from criminalizing and deterring acts that are against the teachings of Islam, also aims to educate, respect and protect the legitimate rights of all individuals, society or nationality of any faiths and race,” said his office in a statement.

The laws, which also include amputation for theft and the death penalty for apostasy, were adopted in 2014 and rolled out in phases. April 3 marks their full enactment.

Non-Muslims, who make up about one-third of Brunei’s population of 420,000, will also be subject to a number of aspects of the laws. Those specified so far include punishments for wearing indecent clothing that “disgraces Islam.”

This offense comes with a jail term of up to six months, a fine of up to $1,600 or both. At present, all women – Muslim or not – must wear a hijab if they work for the government or attend official functions.

In addition, non-Muslims are not allowed to take care of Muslim children, eat or drink in public during the Islamic month of Ramadan, proselytize, bring Christian materials into the country or even use words like Allah(God) and firman Allah (God’s word), which are found in the bibles commonly used by Bruneian Christians.

All Bruneians were warned they can be prosecuted for criticizing the new laws, as was prevalent of late on social media in the country.

Criticism of the sharia punishments came fast and swift from the West, whose Leftist torchbearers mainly honed in on the punishments for homosexuality:

In an article in Deadline Hollywood, Oscar-winning actor George Clooney called for a boycott of the nine super-luxury hotels owned by the sultan:

“Brunei will begin stoning and whipping to death any of its citizens that are proved to be gay. Let that sink in. Every single time we stay or take meetings at or dine at any of these nine hotels we are putting money directly into the pockets of men who choose to stone and whip to death their own citizens for being gay or accused of adultery.

Brunei is a Monarchy and certainly any boycott would have little effect on changing these laws … But are we really going to help pay for these human rights violations? Are we really going to help fund the murder of innocent citizens? I’ve learned over years of dealing with murderous regimes that you can’t shame them. But you can shame the banks, the financiers and the institutions that do business with them and choose to look the other way.”

At least one Leftist icon wasn’t buying it. Bill Maher blasted Clooney for calling for the boycott, labeling it “chicken s**t tokenism” and “virtue signaling.”

“What about Saudi Arabia? If you really want to get back at them, stop driving, don’t use oil,” Maher raged, adding. “It’s Sharia Law, which is some version of the law in most Muslim-majority countries.”

Is Maher correct? I would respond with a resounding “no.”

In the face of evil, should we roll over and play dead if we can’t destroy it in one fell swoop?

Maher’s objection is that Clooney’s boycott won’t make any difference. “This idea that the Sultan of Brunei is going over the receipts from the Polo Lounge. ‘Oh no, we only sold two soups today’,” Maher asserted sarcastically.

Yet, that’s not the point of Clooney’s boycott.

First and foremost, it is important to understand the war against political Islam – of which sharia law is its very real manifestation – is not simply a physical war.

Witness the fact that the destruction of ISIS in Syria and Iraq has done little to dim the aspirations of the group and its followers.

There is another war that must be won to eradicate this phenomenon from global institutions and governments, and that is the ideological war.

Of course Clooney’s boycott – even if he succeeded in closing all nine of the hotels — will not put a dent in the sultan’s $20 billion estimated worth. What Clooney can and hopefully will affect is people’s consciousness.

It is almost 18 years since those with the same Islamist ideology crashed into the Twin Towers in New York City killing close to 3,000 people. Yet how many Americans are aware that Brunei’s sharia punishments – along with Saudi Arabia’s and the UAE’s – are part of this equation?

With that consciousness, might more movements be started – each with its own goals? Might more financial pressure be put on other institutions that support Islamist movements and governments?

The U.S. embarked on its own oil business to significantly reduce its dependency on Saudi Arabian oil. At the end of 2018, a headline on msn.com read, “US ends its reliance on foreign oil for the first time in 75 years.”

The article noted the U.S. turned into a net oil exporter, marking a “pivotal…moment toward what U.S. President Donald Trump has branded as ‘energy independence’.” This new reality has been due to an “unprecedented boom in American oil production.”

Will the consciousness of more Americans regarding the reality of sharia law help support and further those projects? Will this expanded consciousness be a factor in whom they choose to represent them in Congress? Hopefully, it will.

“Results” such as these can be the trickle-down impact of Clooney’s boycott in real time.

By refusing to take political action, arm-chair critics such as Maher and S.E. Cupp, a CNN host, who joined him on the show, are the very enablers Islamists depend on to push through their agendas.

On the show, Cupp called Clooney “hypocritical,” yet the only hypocrite visible in this story is the sultan of Brunei, whom, along with his brother Prince Jefri, were dubbed “constant companions in hedonism.”

The extravagant parties of the sultan are an open secret. Vegas showgirls and high-end escorts are often flown in for “entertainment.” In a lawsuit brought by Prince Jefri in a U.S. court , a scandal erupted when the prince attempted to prevent the court from seeing pictures of erotic life-sized statues of himself that show him “in the act.”

While a good part of the Muslim world suffers from extreme poverty, the sultan of Brunei spent $27 million on his 50th birthday.

How sharia-compliant is all that?

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++